MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076945340 · doi:10.1017/s003329179900313x

Implications of impulsive and affective symptoms for serotonin function in bulimia nervosa

2001· article· en· W2076945340 on OpenAlexaff
Howard Steiger, Simon N. Young, N.M.K. Ng Ying Kin, Naomi Koerner, Mimi Israël, Philippe Lageix, Joel Paris

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBulimia nervosaImpulsivitySerotoninParoxetinePsychologyInternal medicinePsychopathologyAnorexia nervosaEndocrinologyProlactin5-HT receptorEating disordersPsychiatryClinical psychologyMedicineHormoneReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bulimic, impulsive and depressive syndromes have all been associated with abnormalities in brain serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) mechanisms. METHODS: We had 26 bulimic women and 22 normal-eater women report impulsive, affective, self-destructive and bulimic symptoms, and then provide serial blood samples for measurement of: [3H]-paroxetine binding in platelets; and, prolactin (PRL) responses following oral meta-chlorophenylpiperazine (m-CPP). RESULTS: Bulimic status was associated with markedly reduced density of paroxetine-binding sites, modest blunting of m-CPP stimulated PRL response, and greater nausea following m-CPP. Biological variables did not co-vary with most psychopathological or eating-symptom indices. However, there were inverse associations (in bulimic women only) between scores indicating impulsivity (largely 'unreflectiveness') and density of platelet 5-HT uptake sites. CONCLUSIONS: Our observations link bulimia nervosa to altered 5-HT functioning, and suggest that there may be a relatively symptom-specific association between impulsivity and reduced 5-HT reuptake.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations94
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological MedicineSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207